Evolution And Mormonism

[canard78]

We're on the same page here as I've been referring to this one a lot recently. If you don't have it already, add this to your repertoire:

It's quoted in several other doctrinal sources as well.

I agree that much of the temple account is symbolic. But Adam and Eve are taught as actual persons and so must themselves be historical and not because it gets more attention. I think it borders on God lying to us if the main parts don't have the historicity that's actually taught about them. Adam and Eve had to make the choice. They taught their posterity before they died 900 years after the Fall. Adam will come again on the earth as patriarch of the human family. All these things point to a literal Adam.

But I do agree with that last, that we all can have a link to someone who lived 6000 years ago (I tend to go back at least 10,000 years ago, the beginnings of the first civilization; Sumer) and that is sufficient to to say we are all descended from Adam. And I also agree that Adam and Eve were not the first homo sapiens and the only ones we descend from. I believe I have found a way for that to fit with LDS doctrine and it sounds like you have too.

I'd be comfortable with all of this. It's fair to say that Adam (Michael) and Eve probably need to have existed as a great patriarch... just probably not in the way the symbolic stories (and myths) that are told about him and her.

I don't, for example, that Adam needed to literally fall. Because I literally fall every day. So the literal fall is me. Adam is parable for the process, reason and solution. It may have actually happened, but I don't think it 'needs to.'

[cdowis]

OK, let's get rid of Adam and Eve. Just a myth or parable.

My first question is whether you think there was a first human being. Is it possible to follow my family tree to a particular individual that we can classify as homo sapiens. Or a homo sapiens never existed?

What then produced that first ancestor -- how would we classify that "parent".

Was that first human a male or female.

How did the male and female find each other and mate before the species died out. Basically did the male evolve in the same time and place as the female, within a time and distance that they could mate with each other.

We got rid of Adam and Eve, but what does that leave us?

If you claim, as other evolutionists, that there was no *first* homo sapiens, you got alot of explaining to do, since that is surely an indefensible argument.

Edited February 25, 2013 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Happily. I base it on the acceptance that some things are better taught as absolutes or facts because it has greater impact on the majority. If Adam and Eve were taught solely as a parable from the outset then they would get far less attention than if taught as our literal first parents.

I'm comfortable with God/prophets saying one thing but meaning another. I think this is well illustrated by D&C 19:6-7:

I believe that some people thrive on absolutes. It gives removes uncertainty. It allows full confidence that what they're doing is right. I can see the benefits to those people. Another example: I have a son who needs absolutes. He wants to know, before he leaves for school, what he will have for dinner. DW tells him a mean. Often it is, sometimes it's not. He is rarely upset by this.

To a certain extent the church still tell us stories that are not fully representative of the reality. This painting, still being published by the church (Dec 2012 Ensign used it) does not accurately depict the translation process: http://mormonfaq.com...book-mormon.jpg - but I accept that it's "more express" than a having to explain the head in the hat to investigators and primary kids and perhaps this simplified depiction is used as it is more likely to "work upon the hearts of the children of men" than a head in hat painting. The early teachings of the prophets manuals chronology only mentioned one wife (or a second after the previous one died). Perhaps again, "more express" than having a tangent to explain why Joseph married teenagers and other men's wives. Given the Lord, the church and my wife and I all take the approach of saying things that are not always entirely accurate, but probably "more express" I don't mind if the literal, historical story of Adam and Eve is simply another "more express" way of teaching the principles they represent as characters.

I consider the symbol of Adam and Eve to be far more important than their literal place in history. I consider the story told in the temple to be the greatest expression of that parable. In the temple prep manual it says of the endowment that "the characters depicted... are symbolic." http://www.lds.org/m...ymbols?lang=eng

It's fair to say that being symbolic can also be real. The temple clothes are both real and symbolic. But Adam and Eve are most important to us as symbols. Symbols that we as humans (each of us like an Adam or Eve) had the option to stay in a pure, holy environment and chose a life of trial and choice. We embraced the "sweat of our brow" life. A symbol that we start as innocent children, perhaps with a simple interaction with God but then, at 8, leave the innocence of 'the garden' of infancy and submit our heart and minds to God as we enter into the lone and dreary world.

That we are all literal descendants of two adults only 6000 years or so ago. That the earth was in a perfect state until then. That there was no death before this moment... all seems unlikely to me. There are plenty of claims from the Eden story that make it unbelievable. But I don't want that to lead to me rejecting the entire story. So I accept the need to teach a historical story because it gets more attention. But I won't hold a grudge against God if I die and discover there was no Eden and no first parents called Adam and Eve. I'll also be fine if there was a literal Adam and Eve who were the parents Seth etc. If we went back 6000 years (or 20,000+ generations) then we have billions and billions of grandparents (4, 8, 16, 32, etc etc). So it's possible that we all have a link back to someone 6000 years ago and maybe they are they people we now call Adam and Eve. But I can't believe they were literally the first people placed on an empty earth that we all descend from (nor Noah and his family 4,000 years ago).

Good catch re: Adam and Eve, and well put! Nice post! I liked the point that even "real" things can be symbolic.

This thread has some kind of glitch in it- it keeps popping up even without comments. It will be around forever. I have noticed that over the last 6 months since it died- it would just reappear again without a new comment- I knew because for a long time one of my comments was the last one, and the thread would pop up with that same comment again and again.

This is the thread that will never end. Somehow it seems fitting. Incidentally that was post 129- I saw it pop up again and then cinepro responded, but he did not resurrect it- it resurrected itself

Edited February 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

It's been awhile since we have talked about evolution.

[mfbukowski]

In fact most of these questions have already been discussed in this thread if anyone would care to actually read them

[cdowis]

Instead of cursing the darkness, it would be helpful if you were to bring light to the discussion by giving us the post numbers where the questions have already been answered.

[BCSpace]

OK, let's get rid of Adam and Eve. Just a myth or parable.

My first question is whether you think there was a first human being. Is it possible to follow my family tree to a particular individual that we can classify as homo sapiens. Or a homo sapiens never existed?

What then produced that first ancestor -- how would we classify that "parent".

Was that first human a male or female.

How did the male and female find each other and mate before the species died out. Basically did the male evolve in the same time and place as the female, within a time and distance that they could mate with each other.

We got rid of Adam and Eve, but what does that leave us?

If you claim, as other evolutionists, that there was no *first* homo sapiens, you got alot of explaining to do, since that is surely an indefensible argument.

I postulate that the evolution of homo sapiens occurred exactly as science tells us. Modern homo sapiens therefore have been around hundreds of thousands of years before the garden state. That there is a mitochondrial Eve and a Y-chromosomal Adam each widely separated by tens of thousands of years and MUCH farther back than a reasonable date for the Fall is of absolutely no consequence in my hypothesis. Neither is the concept of a first ever homo sapiens.

Prior to the garden, they might have had a lesser type of spirit. This might explain why homo sapiens took so long to develop civilizations. Then when all was ready (creation finished) two individuals were born whose spirits were literal children of God or alternatively they were "uplifted" (Some type of gift of intellect/intelligence. The Fall could also been seen as an/the uplift event in this scenario) by God. These were placed into the Garden until the Fall.

What happens to the rest of homo sapiens depends on whether or not the garden state was local or global. The way I see it, there seems to be doctrinal evidence for both but I prefer local (something has to be there for Adam and Eve to be cast out into). I also hypothesize a short stay in the garden, no more than a few years up to a generation or two. Even if the Garden state was global, a short time in the garden would be virtually undetectable by science especially if local.

After the Fall, the rest of homo sapiens interbreed with Adam's children and begin to have spirit children of God as children as well. Or perhaps no interbreeding with Adam's children at all was necessary for that process to begin with them. Or perhaps they died out through some process such as not being able to compete with Adam's posterity etc. There are a variety of possibilities and combinations.

Even though physical lines of descent may have come through (or should I say "around") the garden, that we are all descendents, even literal, of Adam and Eve could be a figure of speech satisfied also by a variety of possibilities. The fact that we all could have in each of our lines somewhere a descendant from them. Or that our spirits all came from the same stock slated for this world, Adam being the first. Etc.

In short, God used evolution to bring about our physical bodies and such is not in conflict with LDS doctrine by any stretch of the imagination. There are indeed some apostles and prophets who would find that anathema. But there are others who wouldn't and a doctrine against evolution has not found it's way into the Church. Notice that those who do find it to be anathema almost always end up attacking an atheist conclusion about Evolution and not Evolution itself. Perhaps a bit of ignorance on their part.

Russell M Nelson is a recent example of this as he taken some jabs at Evolution that clearly demonstrate his ignorance of Evolution which, though disappointing because he is an M.D., does not detract from his Apostleship because the Church does not endorse Creationism or Evolution and in his defense, his schooling was in a era when the hypothesis' of scientists like Coffin still garnered some respect.

But I think also there is the 1931 statement of the Heber J. Grant Presidency that restrains them. In that statement, the FP looked at the arguments for (James E Talmadge and BH Roberts) and against (the young Joseph Fielding Smith) the notion of pre Adamite races of humans and declared the Church endorsed neither side as doctrine. David O McKay defended this conclusion and partly in consequence, the published works of JFS and his protege BRM, which were anti Evolution, were not accepted as doctrinal.

Since then, we've had a blip here and there. ETB said in the 1970's that the BoM was good for combating the notion of Evolution among other things, but when he was the Prophet in the 80's, he duplicated that statement and left Evolution off the list.

BRM, in his Seven Deadly Heresies speech at BYU (non doctrinal) softened his position by saying essentially that if one could find a way to justify Evolution vis a vis LDS doctrine, more power to them, but that he himself couldn't do it based on the erroneous (as I have demonstrated in scripture and doctrine) notion that Evolution precludes a Fall.

In the 1990s, there was a Seventy iirc, a geologist who said that Evolution violated the laws of Thermodynamics. But that is bad science as, for example, by his same logic an embryo could not develop into a human being.

The recent republishings of the 1909 statement is of no effect as that never precluded Evolution in any way, at worst identifying it as a theory of man (mainly speaking of conclusions about Evolution and not Evolution itself) but not saying it was right or wrong. And in any case, that same statement basically precipitated the JET vs. JFS arguments which were settled by the aforementioned 1931 statement.

And recently the Russell M Nelson jabs which are easily handled. For example, during his interview with Pew Forum he was basically corrected by his companion, Elder Wickman. But Nelson's ignorance of evolution was demonstrated by his statement:

"Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works."

In other words like produces like which is exactly what Evolution teaches as well. Evolution does not teach that one species gives birth to another.

[cdowis]

OK, but I was addressing those evolutionists who do not accept the Garden of Eden, the Adam and Eve story.

Edited February 25, 2013 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only through the female. The links of mtDNA go right back to Africa. That means Eve was African, does it not?

[thesometimesaint]

It means we're all out of Africa. If we go back far enough. Homo Sapiens Sapiens(our biological species) came out some 250,000 years ago.

[semlogo]

I'm not sure how this thread got resurrected... it's 6 months old.

But... the Adam and Eve question missed an option... "They and the garden are figurative parables to teach a lesson but aren't real people and places."

Yes, I don't believe a literal Adam and Eve (at least as described in the creation narrative) are compatible with evolution and population genetics. The story certainly reads like an allegory. Adam and Eve are symbolic figures, IMO. They represent our transition as a species from hunter gatherers to farmers, from wild to civilized. Fall and redemption. All that good stuff.

[cdowis]

Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only through the female. The links of mtDNA go right back to Africa. That means Eve was African, does it not?

Who or what was the mother of Eve? That was basically the question

[mfbukowski]

Instead of cursing the darkness, it would be helpful if you were to bring light to the discussion by giving us the post numbers where the questions have already been answered.

That's ok- you get to do your own research. I have my answers.

[BCSpace]

Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only through the female. The links of mtDNA go right back to Africa. That means Eve was African, does it not?

The Mitochondrial Eve yes. She lived over 100,000 years ago. But not necessarily the Eve who with Adam lived in the Garden and Fell.

Edited February 25, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Who or what was the mother of Eve? That was basically the question

In my hypothesis, another homo sapiens.

[mfbukowski]

Here's the real topic here: Was death caused by sin or not?

I say yes.

I think if you do not believe this, you would have a hard time being LDS with the whole notion that the atonement was necessary to overcome Adam's sin which brought death into the world.

I have my own understanding of this and some here know it, but I just thought I would stir the pot a bit.

[cdowis]

The Mitochondrial Eve yes. She lived over 100,000 years ago. But not necessarily the Eve who with Adam lived in the Garden and Fell.

I have no problem with what I call "place holder" theories, provisional ideas until we have more information. I put the theory of death before Adam, during the five days of creation, in that category.

I personally am not excited about your theory, but i do not have anything better except to throw out the whole dating of homo sapiens. I am not knowledgeable enough at this time to tackle that idea, but I think it holds promise.

It is merely a question of looking closely at the assumptions behind the methodology. Or to re-examine our assumptions on what the scriptural account is telling us.

Edited February 25, 2013 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

cdowis

There

I did it for you anyway.

Not sure if you are speaking to me or not.

Of course there could be no human conception of any "Fall" from sinlessness until there were people who understood sin.

Animals kill and eat each other but do you really think they contemplate their own death? Of course there could be no concept of "death" as we know it until there existed humans who could understand the concept and word, just as there could be no sin before humans understood sin.

Remember that sin brings death? That is what the story means. We cannot have one without the other. If there is no concept of sin or death, they do not exist as we know them.

[BCSpace]

Here's the real topic here: Was death caused by sin or not?

I say yes.

Death after the Fall, yes. Overall no.

I think if you do not believe this, you would have a hard time being LDS with the whole notion that the atonement was necessary to overcome Adam's sin which brought death into the world.

Yet we see from the scriptures that death can swim prior to the garden state.

I have my own understanding of this and some here know it, but I just thought I would stir the pot a bit.

Always good to stir the pot. Keeps the stuff on the bottom from burning.

[BCSpace]

I personally am not excited about your theory, but i do not have anything better except to throw out the whole dating of homo sapiens. I am not knowledgeable enough at this time to tackle that idea, but I think it holds promise.

That is thanks enough. I don't teach my hypothesis as doctrine. But I do know that at the moment and for a long time previously, perhaps all time, there is no specific doctrine against evolution nor are there any other doctrines that evolution conflicts with. My hypothesis is just an example of this; how it might all work together. But as evolution becomes more and more solidified as science, I think that perhaps I am not too far from the truth assuming both science and the LDS Church are true.

[mfbukowski]

Well maybe I will give you a little bit of a hard time here- but I think we both know that we are in agreement in a very basic way, that there is no problem doctrinally with LDS believing in evolution- for me it is just a question of putting it together in the way that works best for each of us

But that said, I had some questions about your view

Death after the Fall, yes. Overall no.

I don't have a problem with that, but I can see it might be a problem for many. For me, the entire concept of "Death" could not exist before the concept of "sin" existed.

For me, it becomes a question of a level of cognitive improvement and understanding of spirituality to be able to know what "sin" IS - as an assertion of one's own will opposed to what God wants for us.

That is the essence of Genesis as I see it- that Adam knows God, he knows what God wants, and yet, partakes of the fruit anyway, KNOWING that the concept of human "death"- that is grief and suffering at the loss of a loved one- will come into his universe by his making that decision to defy the All Knowing Father who has prohibited it.

If the beings who existed had no notion of God, nor what his will was, they could not have committed a "sin"- they were innocents. If by some strange circumstance, a small child finds a gun and kills someone is it "murder"? Of course not- because he does not understand the concept.

We project our ideas of what "death" is on animals, but they have no concept of death either really- it doesn't exist for them because they do not have the conceptual base to understand or contemplate their own death

So for me, Adam was the first human who understood sin and death- and all his posterity follow suit. You can take that literally- which I do, but one could take it metaphorically as well- that it all represents a "fall from innocence" and take Adam as an allegory. That's an option.

Yet we see from the scriptures that death can swim prior to the garden state.

Not quite sure what you mean here.

Edited February 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So there was no CONCEPT of sin and death before there was someone to understand it, so sin and death as we know it could not exist.

That's it in a nutshell.

[BCSpace]

I don't have a problem with that, but I can see it might be a problem for many. For me, the entire concept of "Death" could not exist before the concept of "sin" existed.

For me, the Fall brought death into (the finished being created) world. It's merely contextual.

Yet we see from the scriptures that death can swim prior to the garden state.

Not quite sure what you mean here.

That the scriptures (and doctrine) allow for death to exist prior to the garden state. 2 Nephi 2:22 for example. The state of no death was not applied until creation was finished. Or the Abraham creation account where the Gods waited until the elements obeyed. Waiting for the elements (to bring about homo sapiens) smacks of evolution to me.

[BCSpace]

So there was no CONCEPT of sin and death before there was someone to understand it, so sin and death as we know it could not exist.

Animals merely fulfill the measure of their creation. Until Adam, there were no creatures capable of sinning. For pre Adamite homo sapiens, this is true if their spirits were not literal children of God and/or if there was an uplift.

[BCSpace]

So for me, Adam was the first human who understood sin and death- and all his posterity follow suit. You can take that literally- which I do, but one could take it metaphorically as well- that it all represents a "fall from innocence" and take Adam as an allegory. That's an option.

Sure. I can take it literally just as you do in part because I believe Adam must have been a real historical person.